In a writ petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for recognition of past service rendered as Panchayat Secretary for pension benefits. The Court held the matter was time-barred and distinguished the case from the cited precedent Basheshar Lal due to specific stipulations in the petitioner's new appointment letter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reportable/unreportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO 3294 of 2020
Between:- SWAROOP SINGH, SON OF SH. SHIV LAL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUNISH, POST OFFICE MUNISH BAHALI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.
….PETITIONER
(SH. SUNEEL AWASTHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HORTICULTURE) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
-2-
4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
....RESPONDENTS
(SH. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. NARENDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERA AND SH. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 TO 3).
(NONE FOR R-4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reserved on: 31.8.2022 Date of decision: 6.9.2022. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following :
O R D E R
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for
the following substantive reliefs:-
“a) That the order dated 07.10.2017 i.e. Annexure A-5 whereby the respondent refused to count the service of the applicant from 16.04.1967 to 22.02.1978 rendered in Panchayat Samiti for pension and other benefits may kindly be quashed and set aside.
-3-
passed in CWP No. 1802 of 2002 Annexure A- 3.”
-4-
of this Court in CWP No. 1802 of 2002, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Basheshar Lal. It has further been contended that the petitioner has been discriminated and denial of service benefits to him for the service rendered from 16.4.1967 to 22.9.1978 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As per petitioner, though he served the Panchayat Samiti as Panchayat Secretary w.e.f. 16.4.1967 to 22.9.1978, his services were later absorbed in Rural Development Department, therefore, he was entitled for benefit of continuity of service since the very first day of his employment as Panchayat Secretary i.e. 16.4.1967.
-5-
respondents, the case of petitioner was distinguishable from the case of Basheshar Lal, respondent in CWP No. 1802 of 2002, as the services of said Basheshar Lal were taken over by the department vide order dated 1.6.1984, while he was working as Panchayat Secretary in the Panchayat Samiti. The benefit of the judgment of Basheshar Lal was available only to those Panchayat Secretaries, whose services had been taken over by the department w.e.f. 1.6.1984.
-6-
Horticulture on 20.10.1989. He served as Horticulture Extension Officer till 30.4.2004, when he got superannuated. Noticeably, till the date of his retirement, petitioner did not either raise any objection to the terms and conditions of his appointment nor raised any claim for counting his past service as Panchayat Secretary.
-7-
“ 12. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to note that for quite some time, the Administrative Tribunals established under the Act have been entertaining and deciding the applications filed under Section 19 of the Act in complete disregard of the mandate of Section 21, which reads as under:-
“ 21. Limitation .—(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,—
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where—
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the
-8-
period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court,
the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period”.
13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of
-9-
Section 21 (1) or Section 21 (2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21 (1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period of sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3).
14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impresses. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant.”
-10-
(Satyen Vaidya) 6th September, 2022 Judge (kck)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's representation seeking recognition of past service was time-barred and barred by laches.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to pension benefits for service rendered as Panchayat Secretary under the ratio of the Basheshar Lal judgment.
Whether the failure to consider the Basheshar Lal judgment in the petitioner's case violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India & othersRelied on¶39
2018 (16) SCC 721 · Who else cites this
State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Basheshar LalDistinguished¶33
CWP No. 1802 of 2002, State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Basheshar Lal
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Swaroop Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh
Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Himachal Pradesh
Accountant General Himachal Pradesh
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
